Which Sahaaba are the ones of which the Shi'a approve?

[Rationalist]

Well there you have it. Firstly where does TAKFEER ON SAHABA go then. Secondly accusing and criticising some companions of wrong saying or doing or regarding their attitude and behaviour concerning a certain matter or condemning their stance over a particular issue, why do some people have a constant and continues problem with that. After all where dealing with people who can go as far as becoming apostates. So holding a companion to account less than apostasy, which you believe in, why is that an issue for some.

Calling someone a monafiq is takfir. Its referring to them as a kufr al Nifaaq. The monafiqeen in the Quran are given the status which is worst than kaffirs in the aqira. The 12er Shia when calling Umar a monafiq are really saying he is worst than a kaffir.

[iceman]

Calling someone a monafiq is takfir. Its referring to them as a kufr al Nifaaq. The monafiqeen in the Quran are given the status which is worst than kaffirs in the aqira. The 12er Shia when calling Umar a monafiq are really saying he is worst than a kaffir.

Well it's simple then. One shouldn't have double standards or differentiate between the sahaba. The Sunnis who call Malik bin Nuwayrah an apostate are equally responsible for takfeer on sahaba. Now either you stick with takfeer on sahaba and stop calling Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men apostates and believe that all the sahaba were pious and good they were mehfooz, but then sadly you will have to give up Khalid bin Waleed for murder or manslaughter and Abu Bakr for refusing to bring Khalid to justice by holding him to account for his actions.

Or keep protecting Khalid and Abu Bakr by accusing Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men of apostasy but then you need to stop accusing any Shia of takfeer on sahaba because you don't truly believe in it yourself. It doesn’t matter which way you go you aren't safe until you give up those double standards.

[iceman]

https://www.al-islam.org/node/12738

[Rationalist]

but then sadly you will have to give up Khalid bin Waleed for murder or manslaughter and Abu Bakr for refusing to bring Khalid to justice by holding him to account for his actions.

Lets get one thing straight. I don't think Abi Bakr was right. Anyone has the right to refuse the Caliphate of Abi Bakr. This includes Fatima,  Sa'd ibn Ubadah and Malik and Muslims like you and me.  As for a trial I don't think it would work. Here is the reason why.

Malik refused to accept Abi Bakr's Calipah. Then Khalid come forward and say look he did taqiyyah so I killed him.
So please tell me how a trial would solve the issue in the first place?

[iceman]

This is what I got from a Sunni site. The view of the Ahle Sunnah concerning the Sahabah.

The Companions, whom the Quran describes as “the best of peoples, evolved for mankind” (Aal-i Imran, 3/110), are regarded as the most valuable and virtuous generation of the ummah. They obtained this value and virtue thanks to their strong belief and exemplary deeds. They fulfilled the necessities of the new religion they accepted with full surrendering from the moment they accepted it. They were not forced to accept and practice that new religion but they spent most of their lives with the Messenger of Allah, took part in wars with him and worked hard in order to spread Islam.   

During this process, some of them were threatened, tortured and even killed by the enemies of Islam; some of them had to migrate to other places by leaving their homeland, wealth, wives and children but they did not give up their belief and their loyalty to Allah and His Messenger.

In the Quran, Allah Almighty

- praised the Companions as an Ummah justly balanced (al-Baqara, 2/143),
- stated that they answered the call of Allah and the Messenger and had a great reward (Aal-i Imran, 3/172),
- stated that He was well-pleased with them, as were they with Him and that He prepared for them gardens where they would stay eternally (at -Tawba, 9/100),

- stated that they were loyal believers that helped Allah and His Messenger (al-Hashr, 59/8),
- stated that they preferred others to their own souls though they were in need (al-Hashr, 59/9),
- stated that they would be forgiven as real believers and that they would be given sustenance generously in the hereafter (al-Anfal, 8/74).

When the Prophet (pbuh) mentioned the Companions, whose sacrifices he personally witnessed, he described them as

- the best generation in the history of humanity (Bukhari, Fadailu Ashabin-Nabi, 1),
- the best ones among the ummah (Musnad, V, 350),
- the people whom hellfire would not burn (Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 57),
- people of Paradise, (Muttaqi al-Hindi, XI, 539) and he wanted his ummah
- to entertain them, (Tayalisi, p. 7),
- to treat them well (Musnad, I, 26)
- and not to criticize them maliciously (Bukhari, Fadailu Ashabin-Nabi, 4).

Now the question is where does all this go and why doesn't this apply to all the companions of the Prophet s.a.w during that time? For example and repeated call for justice for people like Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men. The verses of the Quran that guarantee salvation for the companions which some keep putting forward and reminding, why isn't that a guarantee for salvation regarding Malik and his tribes men. Why are they excluded. I know you're going to repeatedly say "well he became an apostate". And my point would be then after all companions can go astray. And the verses of salvation don't really mean and make out what you say.
then do they. You really need to sort out your basics and find your ground.

[iceman]

Lets get one thing straight. I don't think Abi Bakr was right. Anyone has the right to refuse the Caliphate of Abi Bakr. This includes Fatima,  Sa'd ibn Ubadah and Malik and Muslims like you and me.  As for a trial I don't think it would work. Here is the reason why.

Malik refused to accept Abi Bakr's Calipah. Then Khalid come forward and say look he did taqiyyah so I killed him.
So please tell me how a trial would solve the issue in the first place?

Ok, Malik refused to accept Abu Bakr's Caliphate. Then how and where does the taqiyyah bit come in then. If he's openly refused to accept Abu Bakr's Caliphate then how is this taqqiyah. Secondly Khalid accused Malik of taqiyyah regarding God knows what and Khalid killed him based on assumption, then that makes Khalid a murderer. And Abu Bakr was too afraid to bring him to account and punish him. Why? Let me answer it for you. Khalid was an influential figure with alot of weight and manpower. He was a heavyweight with alot of influence and support. That would be a challenge for Abu Bakr and a threat to his chair of Caliphate. It was all about politics and governance after Muhammad's s.a.w death. It was about Caliphate and keeping your position safe.